DashClaw recent decisions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions (e.g., if scoping not supported), or default behavior. The disclosure is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 15 words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and omits important details such as default limit or behavior when scoping is not supported, making it insufficiently informative for its complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and a confusing sibling tool, the description is critically incomplete. It does not clarify the distinction from 'dashclaw_decisions_recent', describe the response format, or explain how optional parameters affect results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'scoped to project/environment' linking project and environment to scoping, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide format, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Read recent DashClaw guard decisions' which clarifies the verb and resource, and mentions scoping to project/environment. However, the sibling tool 'dashclaw_decisions_recent' is similarly named and not distinguished, causing ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dashclaw_decisions_recent'. The description does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or context-specific recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.